MODERN METHODS OF ENDOSCOPIC ENUCLEATION OF BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA AND PROSPECTS FOR THEIR MODIFICATION
Open Access
- 19 April 2021
- journal article
- Published by Center of Endourology Endocenter in Surgical practice (Russia)
- No. 1,p. 20-29
- https://doi.org/10.38181/2223-2427-2021-1-20-29
Abstract
The disadvantage of bipolar and holmium enucleation in transurethral surgery of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the frequent postoperative urination disorders. To increase the effectiveness of surgical treatment, a modification of the surgical technique is necessary.Objective: to compare the perioperative results of endosurgical treatment of large sized BPH using transurethral bipolar (TUEB), laser (HoLEP) and modified laser prostate enucleation (HoLEP-M) methods. Patients and methods: A randomized prospective study was conducted according to the results of surgical treatment of 1104 patients with BPH with a volume of 80 to 350 cm3, divided by methods of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate. A mod-ification of the HoLEP technique was to optimize access to the surgical site with the designation of new anatomical landmarks.Results: Comparison of surgical methods showed their equivalence in the volume of removed tissue, the low frequency of hemorrhagic and infectious complications, the dynamics of urological indicators in the delayed period. TUEB has the least parameters for the time of surgical intervention (98.2 ± 2.24 min.), the vol-ume of blood loss (65.5 ± 1.83 ml), the terms of postoperative catheterization of the bladder (2.0 ± 0.32 days), and the days of hospitalization (3.2 ± 0.40 days). The safety of laser methods is higher than TUEB, during which 3.1% of closed perforations of the prostatic capsule and bladder were observed (versus 0.8-1.5% with laser methods). Modification of the HoLEP technique allows reducing the frequency of late dysuric disorders by 2-3 times, urinary incontinence by 3.4-4 times, cicatricial complications by 1.7-2 times.Conclusion: Bipolar and laser methods of transurethral enucleation of the prostate of large sizes are comparable by criteria of complete removal of prostatic tissue, effectiveness and tolerability in patients with thrombohemorrhagic risk. In terms of the frequency of intraoperative injuries, the safety of laser methods is higher due to the reduced penetrating ability of laser energy. Modification of surgical access to the prostate preserves the prostatic urethra as much as possible and is a promising measure for the prevention of late obstructive and functional complications of transurethral interventions.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: the past and the presentUrology Reports (St. - Petersburg), 2019
- Outcomes of surgical treatment of large prostatic adenoma. Transurethral bipolar enucleation (TuBE) and extraperitoneal endovideosurgical adenomectomy (EVS AE) of the prostate: a comparative analysisUrology and andrology, 2017
- Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: Results of a systematic review and meta-analysisArab Journal of Urology, 2016
- Análisis comparativo entre la enucleación prostática con láser de holmio y la adenomectomía laparoscópica en el tratamiento de adenomas prostáticos mayores de 100 gActas Españolas de Psiquiatría, 2016
- Transurethral enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsWorld Journal of Urology, 2015
- Transurethral Bipolar Enucleation of the Prostate Is an Effective Treatment Option for Men With Urinary RetentionUrology, 2015
- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Functional Outcomes and Complications Following Transurethral Procedures for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Resulting from Benign Prostatic Obstruction: An UpdateEuropean Urology, 2015
- Bipolar plasma enucleation of the prostate vs open prostatectomy in large benign prostatic hyperplasia cases – a medium term, prospective, randomized comparisonBJU International, 2013